The Court dismissed a criminal writ petition challenging an order of issue process in a defamation case filed by a woman respondent. The Court held that the petitioner failed to substantiate truth or lack of malice and was not entitled to relief, especially after similar allegations led to her prior acquittal.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1 Cr WP 389 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
Criminal Writ Petition No.389 of 2014
Priti W/o Prashant Bairagi. .. Petitioner.
Versus
The State of Maharashtra And Another. .. Respondents.
Shri. Rahul R. Karpe, Advocate, for petitioner.
Shri. S.A. Ambad, Additional Public Prosecutor, for respondent No.1.
Shri. R.D. Biradar, Advocate, for respondent No.2.
CORAM: T.V. NALAWADE, J. DATE : 23rd JUNE 2015
ORDER:
2 Cr WP 389 of 2014
the revision is dismissed by the Sessions Court and so this decision is also challenged. Both the sides are heard.
3 Cr WP 389 of 2014
persons started discussing this contention. It is her case that due to this defamatory allegation which is false, she has suffered both mentally and economically and she will not be able to make any career due to such allegation and she has suffered irreparable loss.
"The proof of the truth of the statement is not an element of the Ninth Exception a of the First Exception to Section 499. In the Ninth Exception the person making the imputation has to substantiate that his enquiry was attended with due care and attention and he was thus satisfied that the imputation was true. The accent is on the enquiry, care and objective and not subjective satisfaction.
There is no evidence to show that before making the imputation the appellant had made any enquiry in good faith and the appellant had not shown due care and attention before making the imputation. By reason of the findings of fact that the appellant did not act with care and caution and secondly that the appellant was related to the respondent and thirdly that no enquiry was made by the appellant, the appellant could not claim good faith."
4 Cr WP 389 of 2014
In the proceeding which was filed to challenge the decision of conviction the aforesaid observations were made by the Apex Court. There cannot be dispute over the propositions made by the Apex Court. In the proceeding filed under the D.V. Act there was no need to make present complainant party and such proceeding is apparently not tenable against complainant. Thus aforesaid requirement which needs to be fulfilled for using the exceptions given to section 499 of Indian penal Code are not there in favour of petitioner.
5 Cr WP 389 of 2014
the present petitioner against the respondent on one more occasion. In view of these circumstances, this Court holds that it is not possible to set aide the order of issue process.
Sd/- (T.V. NALAWADE, J. )
rsl
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the order of issue process for defamation under section 500 IPC is maintainable when allegations were made during DV proceedings.
Whether the petitioner fulfilled the requirements of good faith and duty of care under Section 499 IPC exceptions.
Whether the present petition should be allowed given prior acquittal for similar allegations against the petitioner.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sukra Mahto v Basdeo Kumar MahtoReferred¶19
AIR 1971 SC 1567 (Sukra Mahto v Basdeo Kumar Mahto) · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Priti W/o Prashant Bairagi
The State of Maharashtra
Second Respondent
T.V. NALAWADE
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
